Not necessarily. Buddhist vegetarians who advocate vegetarianism using the same kind of consequentialist arguments that are used by non-Buddhist vegetarians wouldn't be misrepresenting the Buddha's teaching, for they wouldn't be representing (or claiming to represent) the Buddha's teaching at all. In my opinion it would be best if they stuck to doing just this.daniil wrote: ↑Tue Jan 29, 2019 10:34 pmAs a lay person, I cannot bring myself to do it since I pick and purchase the food myself. My intention is to not harm others and thus I avoid approving of the butchers' work and rewarding them for it. Would you see that as wrong view? A misinterpretation of the teaching? Delusion?
The problem is when they try to argue their case by invoking teachings like, say, the description of the first precept or the Buddha's teachings on kamma. When they do this they always end up talking nonsense and misrepresenting the teachings in question. In the case of kamma, for example, either they'll go astray by invoking a Jain-like conception of kamma in which the intention prompting one's action is treated as irrelevant, or else they'll play fast and loose with the word "intention", mistakenly supposing the semantic range of this word in English to be co-extensive with that of cetanā in the Pali suttas.
In your case, however, I don't know whether or not you are erring in this way because it's not clear whether the argument in your earlier post was meant to be grounded in dhammic kamma theory or extra-dhammic consequentialism.